Google’s upcoming Airdrop clone gets an early demo on video

I so so hope that this works with desktop computers. Sharing between handsets is not hard to do, but sending to my computer, or vice versa, is such a pain.

I'm assuming you're not an Apple user, as I understand they have it fluidly done. If you're using Android and either Windows or Linux and want to transfer between your own phone and computers, I recommend KDE Connect.(which started on... KDE but as a good Windows version). It can send files as well as notifications, SMS etc locally over WiFi, and is configurable and very fast.I know there are some eg Samsung options too, but KDE Connect is nicely agnostic if you're staying non-apple.

Edit to add that KDE connect also gets you seamless clipboard sync, whichever is awesome.

While I'm very excited about this feature, I've found the majority the time snapdrop.net fulfills my needs. It works very similar to AirDrop and allows direct transfer of files between any two devices on the same wifi just via it's website.

Rereading this it sounds like an ad but I'm not the dev and it's open source...

The WHOLE point is not to involve a website (or the internet).

My wife an I tried to use the current BT-based system to transfer some pictures between two Android phones, but its ungodly slow, and therefore pretty useless.

It would be really nice to have a peer-to-peer file transfer capability over WiFi.Using NFC or BT to start it up would be a good security feature.

Edit: I presume it would work when one phone is acting as a HotSpot (the 'router') so the phones could communicate and transfer files without transferring up and down to the cloud.

My Samsung Galaxy S10e and my previous S7 can share by Wi-Fi Direct. It takes more taps than Google's new method, but I now use Wi-Fi Direct if I have any more than a single photo to share because it's so fast. Multiple photos are sent in a matter of seconds (I don't have a second phone handy right now to time it). No infrastructure Wi-Fi need be present - I've done it between two phones in my lap in the back seat of a moving car (an old car with no Wi-Fi).

2 Sender's phone: select the photo or photos in the Gallery app > tap Share > choose Wi-Fi Direct (often at the end of the list) > Tap the name of the recipient's phone in the list that appears.

3 Recipient's phone: Tap the Allow prompt. Now the transfer happens, with progress bars on both phones and then a notification that it has completed. The received photos appear in the Gallery app in its Downloads album.

Back in 2017 Samsung's S6 and S7 also called it Quick Connect and Samsung Connect.

It was interesting reading the comments from repatch that LG also has this feature, and maybe in an easier fashion.

While I don't own an iPhone, the experiences of my friends with them shows that most of them disable AirDrop off the bat, since any place with a crowd will invariably have some random bellend pushing AirDrop constantly. Other than copying Apple, I don't really see the appeal here, especially when practically every media app has a share button that can push out stuff through a myriad of channels anyway.

AirDrop by default only advertises your presence to people on your contacts list. It's not possible for random strangers to try sending you files unless you manually set your availability to public in AirDrop settings.

I think the previous poster is making a reference to the Syracuse University racist Airdrop incident. It doesn't say who sent the message or how everyone received it but I doubt it was anyone on someone's contact list

It was a bit of a meme for a while to turn on AirDrop for all and send memes to people. That kinda ended a bit when people just started sending inappropriate things after the initial wave of more wholesome anon transfers.

You can't "send" (ie force push) something onto someone else's device via Airdrop. The most you can do is generate a notification on their end that says "X wants to send you a photo <or whatever>" If you don't respond, nothing happens.

Now you can try to be offensive with this because a small preview of the photo is sent (as I said, dickpic) but that's as far as it goes; you can't actually force your way onto someone else's device beyond an easily dismissed thumbnail on the screen. I don't want to diminish the fact that this is not ideal, but it's basically just another version of goatse'ing, it's not actually stalking or a security breach or anything beyond an offensive thumbnail.

While I don't own an iPhone, the experiences of my friends with them shows that most of them disable AirDrop off the bat, since any place with a crowd will invariably have some random bellend pushing AirDrop constantly. Other than copying Apple, I don't really see the appeal here, especially when practically every media app has a share button that can push out stuff through a myriad of channels anyway.

AirDrop by default only advertises your presence to people on your contacts list. It's not possible for random strangers to try sending you files unless you manually set your availability to public in AirDrop settings.

I think the previous poster is making a reference to the Syracuse University racist Airdrop incident. It doesn't say who sent the message or how everyone received it but I doubt it was anyone on someone's contact list

It was a bit of a meme for a while to turn on AirDrop for all and send memes to people. That kinda ended a bit when people just started sending inappropriate things after the initial wave of more wholesome anon transfers.

You can't "send" (ie force push) something onto someone else's device via Airdrop. The most you can do is generate a notification on their end that says "X wants to send you a photo <or whatever>" If you don't respond, nothing happens.

Now you can try to be offensive with this because a small preview of the photo is sent (as I said, dickpic) but that's as far as it goes; you can't actually force your way onto someone else's device beyond an easily dismissed thumbnail on the screen. I don't want to diminish the fact that this is not ideal, but it's basically just another version of goatse'ing, it's not actually stalking or a security breach or anything beyond an offensive thumbnail.

Send files locally over Wi-Fi, even when there's no Internet connection.

This is like saying "send files locally over Wi-Fi, even when not near a hydroelectric dam."

No it's NOT.The point is that the wifi connection is created ON THE FLY. You don't need to leach off an existing WiFi connection with all that implies (base-station, you're both connected, you've both entered the password).

In turn this requires a particular WiFi capability from the chipset (the ability to create an ad hoc WiFi network -- normal WiFi usage is called "infrastructure mode") which used to be not implemented in all WiFi chipsets. Obviously since Apple controls all their chipsets, they could ensure that all their kit DID support it.

I don't know the current state of the art, whether pretty much every WiFi chipset (at least those of interest to Android) now supports ad hoc mode? Maybe so?

Heres an idea: Why not build a better UI for Bluetooth Object Exchange, which has worked decently across platforms since over a decade ago, and use the freed up engineer time to come up with a unified, patent unencumbered wireless/IP display standard instead of opening up another pointless point of competitive fragmentation.

Uhm......Google has something similar already. It's already baked into their FILES smart file-manager app for a long time (a year?) alreadyg.co/filesgo respectively https://play.google.com/store/apps/deta ... .nbu.filesIt uses Bluetooth and perhaps acoustics (like Google home app finds their Google Chromecast) for initial connection setup with other devices (also using precise GPS location on both devices to verify they're in close proximity), sender becomes a WIFI AP, and recipient automatically links up with sender's WIFI AP.It's really easy to use and very fast too. Transferred a 3+ GB video within 2-3 minutes that way (my Pixel 3 to her Pixel 2).

I always wondered why Wifi Direct wasn't more ubiquitous, and why Google never tried to do anything with it, instead of futzing with slow-ass protocols like NFC and Bluetooth. The theory that they were promoting their website services instead would explain a lot.

Uhm......Google has something similar already. It's already baked into their FILES smart file-manager app for a long time (a year?) alreadyg.co/filesgo respectively https://play.google.com/store/apps/deta ... .nbu.filesIt uses Bluetooth and perhaps acoustics (like Google home app finds their Google Chromecast) for initial connection setup with other devices (also using precise GPS location on both devices to verify they're in close proximity), sender becomes a WIFI AP, and recipient automatically links up with sender's WIFI AP.It's really easy to use and very fast too. Transferred a 3+ GB video within 2-3 minutes that way (my Pixel 3 to her Pixel 2).

Samsung is also working on a similar feature called "Quick Share" which is expected to debut in the Galaxy S20

Except Samsung has had this since 2012 in the form of S Beam, which uses wi-fi direct to transfer files. It's also been available through Play store apps for at least as long with apps like Super Beam.

Apple's Airdrop has been around for eight years now, and Google has long resisted adding a similar feature in Android, presumably because it would undercut the company's cloud services. Need a share a photo? Put it on Google Photos or (previously) Google+. Need to share a video? YouTube. Need to share anything else? Send it over to Google Drive.

I don't think Google's service will take away from their current cloud offering. People who want cloud services already use it. Nearby Sharing would benefit people that don't want to use the cloud as well as other people who just want to send a file quickly without having to upload and send out links, especially when no internet service is available.

Non-Apple people appear not to appreciate the full scope of value of Apple's "local connection" services, of which AirDrop is just a part. These all seem to be based on some combination of Bluetooth to get thing started, then an on-the-fly WiFi network if appropriate for large amounts of data. (Which is, TECHNICALLY, still using Bluetooth! Look up the BT3 spec...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth ... h_3.0_+_HS )

Many of these services either wouldn't make sense via the cloud, or would be horribly crippled. They include- one step setting up a new iOS device: transfers all the config data (including the WiFi network and password) from your older iPhone or iPad.

- in a new environment (think hotel room) you only have to connect one device, say iPhone, to the WiFi; the connection credentials can then be transferred locally to other devices - obviously your aWatch, but also your iPad, and [if you have set things up to allow this] to say your wife's iPhone/iPad.

- transferring photos or suchlike between iPhones with no network connectivity. (Think friends traveling together sharing photos in a restaurant or whatever, with no cell phone connectivity or wifi)

- using your Apple Watch to unlock your Mac

- copy/pasting and similar "Continuity" operations between Apple devices

- "Continuity Camera" (using your iPhone as a camera to scan something or take a photo, on behalf of your Mac -- ie in Mac email you can quickly switch to your camera to take a scan of a signature page, which will appear in the email)

One would hope that Google is building as rich technological underpinnings as Apple, to allow all these varied different sort of transfer usage models. Maybe that's the eventual goal, and the Airdrop clone is just the first step?

I think this stuff is harder than it looks. It's remains unclear to me just how abstracted Apple's version is. Where Apple clearly should be headed is that all these services are built on a single set of communication primitives, provided as API by the OS, and available to third parties. But I don't think we are there yet; different services still appear to each be rolling their own libraries, and developers don't appear to be able to use anything but the very highest levels of the services. The cynic would say "this is Apple not wanting to share, what's new?"; but I think that's likely the stupid argument of someone who hates Apple but doesn't know them well. My guess is it's just not yet obvious the ideal sort of API's you want; or the failure modes you need to guard against (attacking other devices, tracking, denial of service, draining battery, ...)

Honestly that all just sounds like the benefit of buying into the ecosystem.

It's nice, but throw a couple non-Apple devices into the mix and suddenly it all seems a lot less convenient.

I remember, like many here, when bluetooth was the standard for sending simple media such as a ringtone, some contact or some pre-smartphone era photo. It didn't matter what phone you had, BT worked. Since BT has small bandwidth and is locked on Apple's side, genuine question... what is the best solution, if any exists, to seamlessly transfer any file between all smartphones(including iphones)? No cloud involved, strictly device storage to device storage.

I remember, like many here, when bluetooth was the standard for sending simple media such as a ringtone, some contact or some pre-smartphone era photo. It didn't matter what phone you had, BT worked. Since BT has small bandwidth and is locked on Apple's side, genuine question... what is the best solution, if any exists, to seamlessly transfer any file between all smartphones(including iphones)? No cloud involved, strictly device storage to device storage.

Well iOS 13 supports USB mass storage so use a thumb drive?

I guess if they're both on the same WiFi subnet they could discover each other without going out to the Internet.

Really there's no great cross-platform alternative that's reliable and seamless and doesn't depend on the Internet.

While I don't own an iPhone, the experiences of my friends with them shows that most of them disable AirDrop off the bat, since any place with a crowd will invariably have some random bellend pushing AirDrop constantly. Other than copying Apple, I don't really see the appeal here, especially when practically every media app has a share button that can push out stuff through a myriad of channels anyway.

AirDrop by default only advertises your presence to people on your contacts list. It's not possible for random strangers to try sending you files unless you manually set your availability to public in AirDrop settings.

I recall reading about drive-by dick pics via air drop, so the initial introduction probably didn't have this feature.

Many of these services either wouldn't make sense via the cloud, or would be horribly crippled. They include

I know your list wasn't intended to be exhaustive, but another "that just makes sense" feature is sharing WiFi network credentials via AirDrop. You just try to connect to the password-connected network and your friend with access gets a prompt on their phone asking if they'd like to share the access credentials. Boom, it just works, and no trying to read the password off the back of a router in a cupboard somewhere.

While I don't own an iPhone, the experiences of my friends with them shows that most of them disable AirDrop off the bat, since any place with a crowd will invariably have some random bellend pushing AirDrop constantly. Other than copying Apple, I don't really see the appeal here, especially when practically every media app has a share button that can push out stuff through a myriad of channels anyway.

AirDrop by default only advertises your presence to people on your contacts list. It's not possible for random strangers to try sending you files unless you manually set your availability to public in AirDrop settings.

I recall reading about drive-by dick pics via air drop, so the initial introduction probably didn't have this feature.

I believe it's always defaulted to contacts only — for example, here's the BBC noting that in 2015 — but there are a certain fraction of people who changed that to “Everyone” and later regretted it[1]. Google could improve that by making Everyone a time-limited setting so you could enable it at a conference or party but not have to remember to change it back.

1. Regretted as in “someone sends a picture to their teacher, who has to report and wipe their phone because it's legally considered child pornography”

Apple's Airdrop has been around for eight years now, and Google has long resisted adding a similar feature in Android, presumably because it would undercut the company's cloud services. Need a share a photo? Put it on Google Photos or (previously) Google+. Need to share a video? YouTube. Need to share anything else? Send it over to Google Drive.

Honestly that all just sounds like the benefit of buying into the ecosystem.

I mean, yes? But the first paragraph mentioned an existing standard that not all parties have yet implemented, Bluetooth 3.0 + HS; if everyone implemented that then there would be no reason for Apple to 'reinvent the wheel'. Since the wheel didn't exist, Apple invented it.

Quote:

It's nice, but throw a couple non-Apple devices into the mix and suddenly it all seems a lot less convenient.

Like others here, I've found a decent solution for sending files for my own personal and family use (SendAnywhere - works on Android, iOS, Mac, Windows, Linux.) I could also use Google Drive by uploading a file and sending someone a link, but that's a lot of steps just for sending a couple simple files, and it's not something I look forward to walking my friends and family through.

Like others have said, sure hope it supports PCs too! Otherwise I'll have to keep SendAnywhere for now.

But having something built into the OS is way better: you always know the other person has it available without having to first download and set up an app, the files are sent locally without first getting uploaded to someone's random cloud server, and you don't have to give yet another app written by some random developer a bunch of security permissions and access to your personal files.

Looking forward to trying this out when it releases, and looking forward to being able to uninstall SendEverywhere from all of my devices!

cool now every lg and sony model will rename it and make it incompatible with anything else, google doesnt control android as people often say, all they can do is spray and pray, its not even close to how microsoft can rein in on windows

LG has had this feature for YEARS. It's android finally catching up I guess.

Actually Android had wifi direct added waaaay back in Android 4, in 2011.

cool now every lg and sony model will rename it and make it incompatible with anything else, google doesnt control android as people often say, all they can do is spray and pray, its not even close to how microsoft can rein in on windows

LG has had this feature for YEARS. It's android finally catching up I guess.

Actually Android had wifi direct added waaaay back in Android 4, in 2011.

While I don't own an iPhone, the experiences of my friends with them shows that most of them disable AirDrop off the bat, since any place with a crowd will invariably have some random bellend pushing AirDrop constantly. Other than copying Apple, I don't really see the appeal here, especially when practically every media app has a share button that can push out stuff through a myriad of channels anyway.

AirDrop by default only advertises your presence to people on your contacts list. It's not possible for random strangers to try sending you files unless you manually set your availability to public in AirDrop settings.

I recall reading about drive-by dick pics via air drop, so the initial introduction probably didn't have this feature.

I believe it's always defaulted to contacts only — for example, here's the BBC noting that in 2015 — but there are a certain fraction of people who changed that to “Everyone” and later regretted it[1]. Google could improve that by making Everyone a time-limited setting so you could enable it at a conference or party but not have to remember to change it back.

1. Regretted as in “someone sends a picture to their teacher, who has to report and wipe their phone because it's legally considered child pornography”

When "Wait Wait Don't Tell Me" made this a bit, they didn't mention defaults.

It seems these woman changed the default. BTW if you are the type to send dick picks, apparently hairy and flaccid is not desirable.

Wow! A Google product feature that doesn't require a constant internet connection! One thing I can't stand is that if my internet drops out suddenly every Chromecast and Google Home device in my house is broadcasting an unsecure WiFi network so they can be "setup" again.

Wow! A Google product feature that doesn't require a constant internet connection! One thing I can't stand is that if my internet drops out suddenly every Chromecast and Google Home device in my house is broadcasting an unsecure WiFi network so they can be "setup" again.

yeah, i had that happen last week & it was a total Cluster Spot

was wondering why the heck I had so may open hotspots in my home, till I read your post

This seems to be the big difference between Google and Apple. Google only sees how they can push their services on people, not how to do the job the best way.

Nothing new here.

What would have been revolutionary would be if it worked with Airplay.

What was wrong with the open cross platform way of using BT?

It was cumbersome to setup, unreliable, and extremely slow — and that was back when cameras were much lower resolution so it’d need more than just keeping pace to be a plausible option for serious use.

This seems to be the big difference between Google and Apple. Google only sees how they can push their services on people, not how to do the job the best way.

Nothing new here.

What would have been revolutionary would be if it worked with Airplay.

What was wrong with the open cross platform way of using BT?

It was cumbersome to setup, unreliable, and extremely slow — and that was back when cameras were much lower resolution so it’d need more than just keeping pace to be a plausible option for serious use.

But now apple uses ble or BT and then WiFi. But it's also conveniently keeps transfers to iOS only.

Just yesterday sharing something meant hitting the share icon, pick BT, then select a target. If they weren't their before then going to BT settings lets it happen. Of course sharing via NFC made authentication easier but still slow.

Apple's Airdrop has been around for eight years now, and Google has long resisted adding a similar feature in Android, presumably because it would undercut the company's cloud services. Need a share a photo? Put it on Google Photos or (previously) Google+. Need to share a video? YouTube. Need to share anything else? Send it over to Google Drive.

I don't think Google's service will take away from their current cloud offering. People who want cloud services already use it. Nearby Sharing would benefit people that don't want to use the cloud as well as other people who just want to send a file quickly without having to upload and send out links, especially when no internet service is available.

Non-Apple people appear not to appreciate the full scope of value of Apple's "local connection" services, of which AirDrop is just a part. These all seem to be based on some combination of Bluetooth to get thing started, then an on-the-fly WiFi network if appropriate for large amounts of data. (Which is, TECHNICALLY, still using Bluetooth! Look up the BT3 spec...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth ... h_3.0_+_HS )

Many of these services either wouldn't make sense via the cloud, or would be horribly crippled. They include- one step setting up a new iOS device: transfers all the config data (including the WiFi network and password) from your older iPhone or iPad.

- in a new environment (think hotel room) you only have to connect one device, say iPhone, to the WiFi; the connection credentials can then be transferred locally to other devices - obviously your aWatch, but also your iPad, and [if you have set things up to allow this] to say your wife's iPhone/iPad.

- transferring photos or suchlike between iPhones with no network connectivity. (Think friends traveling together sharing photos in a restaurant or whatever, with no cell phone connectivity or wifi)

- using your Apple Watch to unlock your Mac

- copy/pasting and similar "Continuity" operations between Apple devices

- "Continuity Camera" (using your iPhone as a camera to scan something or take a photo, on behalf of your Mac -- ie in Mac email you can quickly switch to your camera to take a scan of a signature page, which will appear in the email)

One would hope that Google is building as rich technological underpinnings as Apple, to allow all these varied different sort of transfer usage models. Maybe that's the eventual goal, and the Airdrop clone is just the first step?

I think this stuff is harder than it looks. It's remains unclear to me just how abstracted Apple's version is. Where Apple clearly should be headed is that all these services are built on a single set of communication primitives, provided as API by the OS, and available to third parties. But I don't think we are there yet; different services still appear to each be rolling their own libraries, and developers don't appear to be able to use anything but the very highest levels of the services. The cynic would say "this is Apple not wanting to share, what's new?"; but I think that's likely the stupid argument of someone who hates Apple but doesn't know them well. My guess is it's just not yet obvious the ideal sort of API's you want; or the failure modes you need to guard against (attacking other devices, tracking, denial of service, draining battery, ...)

Honestly that all just sounds like the benefit of buying into the ecosystem.

It's nice, but throw a couple non-Apple devices into the mix and suddenly it all seems a lot less convenient.

What really happens is that you quickly realize how much less convenient it is to use a non-Apple device:

"Can you send me that?"

"Sure, let's AirDrop...oh, you use Android. OK, I don't have your wifi password yet, this is my first time at your house. Can you tell me what it is?"

"Oh geez...I can't remember what it is."

"OK, it's probably on the bottom of the router."

"The what? My son set all this up, my DSL and everything."

"Oh my god...DSL? How slow is your upload to the cloud? Maybe we shouldn't transfer this big file this way."

"Like I said, I don't know, I can watch Netflix OK though..."

"No, I mean upload. Never mind, I guess you should just email it to me, and I'll get it at home after it's done uploading here."

This is where AirDrop has a major advantage. Because it uses a local direct wifi connection, access to wifi, distance to wifi router + interference, Internet upload/download bandwidth, and any other limitations of the local connection to cloud servers are non-obstacles. Because the local network is simply not used. A file of any size will transfer at a speed only limited by the wifi+Bluetooth chipsets in the two devices talking to each other directly, and because the two devices are usually in the same room, the wireless signal is as strong as can be.

In other words, AirDrop will work between two devices during a camping trip in the wilderness with no Internet availability of any kind...and it will be fast. Try that with your cloud servers.

The ultimate sign Apple got Airdrop right, my parents can use it without me telling them how to use it. In fact I was quite surprised when my Mom started airdropping me pictures after a trip with no questions asked

Airdrop is great, especially when you need to quickly whip a file between two devices signed into the same Apple ID - i.e. from your phone to your laptop. Glad Android users are getting in on the fun of easy transfers regardless of OEM.

Speaking of, wasn't Samsung supposedly working on their own version of this, too? I wonder what that could offer that a Google version wouldn't.

Apple's Airdrop has been around for eight years now, and Google has long resisted adding a similar feature in Android, presumably because it would undercut the company's cloud services. Need a share a photo? Put it on Google Photos or (previously) Google+. Need to share a video? YouTube. Need to share anything else? Send it over to Google Drive.

I don't think Google's service will take away from their current cloud offering. People who want cloud services already use it. Nearby Sharing would benefit people that don't want to use the cloud as well as other people who just want to send a file quickly without having to upload and send out links, especially when no internet service is available.

Non-Apple people appear not to appreciate the full scope of value of Apple's "local connection" services, of which AirDrop is just a part. These all seem to be based on some combination of Bluetooth to get thing started, then an on-the-fly WiFi network if appropriate for large amounts of data. (Which is, TECHNICALLY, still using Bluetooth! Look up the BT3 spec...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth ... h_3.0_+_HS )

Many of these services either wouldn't make sense via the cloud, or would be horribly crippled. They include- one step setting up a new iOS device: transfers all the config data (including the WiFi network and password) from your older iPhone or iPad.

- in a new environment (think hotel room) you only have to connect one device, say iPhone, to the WiFi; the connection credentials can then be transferred locally to other devices - obviously your aWatch, but also your iPad, and [if you have set things up to allow this] to say your wife's iPhone/iPad.

- transferring photos or suchlike between iPhones with no network connectivity. (Think friends traveling together sharing photos in a restaurant or whatever, with no cell phone connectivity or wifi)

- using your Apple Watch to unlock your Mac

- copy/pasting and similar "Continuity" operations between Apple devices

- "Continuity Camera" (using your iPhone as a camera to scan something or take a photo, on behalf of your Mac -- ie in Mac email you can quickly switch to your camera to take a scan of a signature page, which will appear in the email)

One would hope that Google is building as rich technological underpinnings as Apple, to allow all these varied different sort of transfer usage models. Maybe that's the eventual goal, and the Airdrop clone is just the first step?

I think this stuff is harder than it looks. It's remains unclear to me just how abstracted Apple's version is. Where Apple clearly should be headed is that all these services are built on a single set of communication primitives, provided as API by the OS, and available to third parties. But I don't think we are there yet; different services still appear to each be rolling their own libraries, and developers don't appear to be able to use anything but the very highest levels of the services. The cynic would say "this is Apple not wanting to share, what's new?"; but I think that's likely the stupid argument of someone who hates Apple but doesn't know them well. My guess is it's just not yet obvious the ideal sort of API's you want; or the failure modes you need to guard against (attacking other devices, tracking, denial of service, draining battery, ...)

Honestly that all just sounds like the benefit of buying into the ecosystem.

It's nice, but throw a couple non-Apple devices into the mix and suddenly it all seems a lot less convenient.

What really happens is that you quickly realize how much less convenient it is to use a non-Apple device:

"Can you send me that?"

"Sure, let's AirDrop...oh, you use Android. OK, I don't have your wifi password yet, this is my first time at your house. Can you tell me what it is?"

"Oh geez...I can't remember what it is."

"OK, it's probably on the bottom of the router."

"The what? My son set all this up, my DSL and everything."

"Oh my god...DSL? How slow is your upload to the cloud? Maybe we shouldn't transfer this big file this way."

"Like I said, I don't know, I can watch Netflix OK though..."

"No, I mean upload. Never mind, I guess you should just email it to me, and I'll get it at home after it's done uploading here."

This is where AirDrop has a major advantage. Because it uses a local direct wifi connection, access to wifi, distance to wifi router + interference, Internet upload/download bandwidth, and any other limitations of the local connection to cloud servers are non-obstacles. Because the local network is simply not used. A file of any size will transfer at a speed only limited by the wifi+Bluetooth chipsets in the two devices talking to each other directly, and because the two devices are usually in the same room, the wireless signal is as strong as can be.

In other words, AirDrop will work between two devices during a camping trip in the wilderness with no Internet availability of any kind...and it will be fast. Try that with your cloud servers.

Why is emailing it to someone a big deal? Why would that person have to wait to get it at home when everyone uses email on phones? What is this, 2007?

Realize that the most popular android phones from Samsung have had easy file sharing via wifi direct for years, and works also with other phones using wifi direct.

Apple's Airdrop has been around for eight years now, and Google has long resisted adding a similar feature in Android, presumably because it would undercut the company's cloud services. Need a share a photo? Put it on Google Photos or (previously) Google+. Need to share a video? YouTube. Need to share anything else? Send it over to Google Drive.

I don't think Google's service will take away from their current cloud offering. People who want cloud services already use it. Nearby Sharing would benefit people that don't want to use the cloud as well as other people who just want to send a file quickly without having to upload and send out links, especially when no internet service is available.

Non-Apple people appear not to appreciate the full scope of value of Apple's "local connection" services, of which AirDrop is just a part. These all seem to be based on some combination of Bluetooth to get thing started, then an on-the-fly WiFi network if appropriate for large amounts of data. (Which is, TECHNICALLY, still using Bluetooth! Look up the BT3 spec...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth ... h_3.0_+_HS )

Many of these services either wouldn't make sense via the cloud, or would be horribly crippled. They include- one step setting up a new iOS device: transfers all the config data (including the WiFi network and password) from your older iPhone or iPad.

- in a new environment (think hotel room) you only have to connect one device, say iPhone, to the WiFi; the connection credentials can then be transferred locally to other devices - obviously your aWatch, but also your iPad, and [if you have set things up to allow this] to say your wife's iPhone/iPad.

- transferring photos or suchlike between iPhones with no network connectivity. (Think friends traveling together sharing photos in a restaurant or whatever, with no cell phone connectivity or wifi)

- using your Apple Watch to unlock your Mac

- copy/pasting and similar "Continuity" operations between Apple devices

- "Continuity Camera" (using your iPhone as a camera to scan something or take a photo, on behalf of your Mac -- ie in Mac email you can quickly switch to your camera to take a scan of a signature page, which will appear in the email)

One would hope that Google is building as rich technological underpinnings as Apple, to allow all these varied different sort of transfer usage models. Maybe that's the eventual goal, and the Airdrop clone is just the first step?

I think this stuff is harder than it looks. It's remains unclear to me just how abstracted Apple's version is. Where Apple clearly should be headed is that all these services are built on a single set of communication primitives, provided as API by the OS, and available to third parties. But I don't think we are there yet; different services still appear to each be rolling their own libraries, and developers don't appear to be able to use anything but the very highest levels of the services. The cynic would say "this is Apple not wanting to share, what's new?"; but I think that's likely the stupid argument of someone who hates Apple but doesn't know them well. My guess is it's just not yet obvious the ideal sort of API's you want; or the failure modes you need to guard against (attacking other devices, tracking, denial of service, draining battery, ...)

Honestly that all just sounds like the benefit of buying into the ecosystem.

It's nice, but throw a couple non-Apple devices into the mix and suddenly it all seems a lot less convenient.

What really happens is that you quickly realize how much less convenient it is to use a non-Apple device:

"Can you send me that?"

"Sure, let's AirDrop...oh, you use Android. OK, I don't have your wifi password yet, this is my first time at your house. Can you tell me what it is?"

"Oh geez...I can't remember what it is."

"OK, it's probably on the bottom of the router."

"The what? My son set all this up, my DSL and everything."

"Oh my god...DSL? How slow is your upload to the cloud? Maybe we shouldn't transfer this big file this way."

"Like I said, I don't know, I can watch Netflix OK though..."

"No, I mean upload. Never mind, I guess you should just email it to me, and I'll get it at home after it's done uploading here."

This is where AirDrop has a major advantage. Because it uses a local direct wifi connection, access to wifi, distance to wifi router + interference, Internet upload/download bandwidth, and any other limitations of the local connection to cloud servers are non-obstacles. Because the local network is simply not used. A file of any size will transfer at a speed only limited by the wifi+Bluetooth chipsets in the two devices talking to each other directly, and because the two devices are usually in the same room, the wireless signal is as strong as can be.

In other words, AirDrop will work between two devices during a camping trip in the wilderness with no Internet availability of any kind...and it will be fast. Try that with your cloud servers.

Just wanted to add that iOS also gives you the option to provide a link to an automatically generated iCloud album (automatically expires in 30 days) with the photos/videos you are trying to text them. I use this feature rather than email when sharing with my mom, my mother in law and so on.